Friday, 19 September 2014

Summers by Summers

We won’t call him a writer
because he doesn’t appear to be one. We won’t call him a journalist
because, as we’ll show you, he demonstrates he isn’t really one.

In any
library there are the fiction and the non-fiction areas. Some advocate
there should be a third section which is neither. They call it
fantasy.

Mr Summers’ work is none. Not even fantasy. A category
has to be created for his work. Libraries willing to carry his books
will have to find a unique space to shelve it. Not even those rooms with
“men” and “women” written on the door are appropriate as it seems the
toilet bowls refuse to be associated with this man’s work.

We
think we nailed it when we called his latest book “Looking for
Madeleine” a piece of… That’s as precise as anyone is able to define it with correct and intellectual honesty.

He’s not a liar. Or at least in this book he’s, in our opinion, not lying.

Does
one really want or expect to deceive about one’s identity when one puts
on a Halloween costume? No. It doesn’t cross anyone’s mind that one
is to be taken as the real Elisa Doolittle or Princess Leia. Everyone
knows it’s a costume and not a deceiving exercise. Simple role playing and
all involved know that. Much like Mr Summers’ writings. Everyone knows
it’s a travesty, it fools no one and everyone knows that it had never that intent. And
in everyone are included Mr Summers and his co-author, Robbyn Swan.

The surprise that was
reserved for us was to find out that the biggest critic we have found of Mr
Summers’ latest piece is none other than Mr Summers himself.

Mr
Summers, the reader, we saw, was rather harsh on Mr Summers, the author,
we must say. But he was precise and very objective in his criticisms to himself as
we’ll show.

A stern wag of the finger of the worst kind from Mr Summers, the reader, to Mr Summers, the author.

You
see, when questioned about the content of his book “The Eleventh Hour”
about 9/11, Mr Summers attacks with an authoritarian conviction the
credibility of witnesses presented by the opposing side in the debate.
Plus, he is very adamant in demanding physical proof of what sustains
what he deems to be “major worldwide news”.

The following video
is a debate moderated by Mr Terry Kester between Mr Anthony Summers and
Mr Craig Ranke. Mr Ranke was at the time part of CIT – Citizen
Investigation Team. The topic of the debate was “What happened at the
Pentagon on 9/11” and was pre-recorded by WPFW (Pacifica) on September
2nd, 2011 and aired on the following September 11th.

We
want to make very clear that we do not endorse any of the theories put
forward – we haven’t researched the issue to allow us to voice our
opinion on it – in the debate, reason why we have edited the transcript
leaving only what we consider relevant to the Maddie case.

No
comments about the Pentagon plane theory will be published, as that's
not what the blog is about. We will, of course, read unpublished
comments with interest.

What we only wish to call your attention to is in what way Mr Summers tackles Mr Ranke’s “evidence” and nothing else.

At 8:09:

Ranke:
I will tell you that I have… our organisation (?) has, had an e-mail
conversation with Lieutenant-Colonel Steve O’Brien, the pilot of the
C-130, and he confirmed with us that he did not see a plane hit the
Pentagon…

(…)

Summers: Can I just interject there?... Because I think…

Kester: Look, let me move on…

Summers: Mr Ranke has just made a very, very serious statement…

Kester: Ok

Summers:
… saying he has this e-mail from the Colonel who from the Official
version saw, he said he saw, a plane crash into the Pentagon…

Ranke: No, he didn’t say that…

Summers:
If this is true, it is major worldwide news, then Mr Ranke should make
this e-mail public, and the Colonel should be asked to account for it,
if indeed this mail exists, if he actually says what he’s been being
quoted as saying…

Ranke: Well, the e-mail is public, and we have, it’s on our website…

Mr
Summers wants the physical evidence about this witness to be publicly
shown and demands the witness be accountable for any discrepancy. A
commendable attitude by one who demands full transparency and truth
about what he deems to be “major worldwide news”.

However, on his latest book, the Express (14SEPT14) says this about a possible very strong suspect of abducting Maddie:

“The
book states: “A British citizen long resident in the Algarve has
described the chilling episode when a man claiming to represent an
orphanage came to the door of her friend, also English.

“There was a knock at the door, “ she recalled, “and the man standing there said he was collecting for some orphanage.

“He
looked rather unkempt, scruffy. But what made her very uncomfortable
was that, all the time he stood there, he wasn’t looking at her but past
her – at her three-year-old daughter.”

Her sense of unease increased when she saw him waiting at the end of the road.

The
friend told the authors: “And the following day, she left her
three-year-old daughter downstairs for a minute or two while she went
upstairs to fetch some laundry.

“Then, when she was coming back
down the stairs, she caught a glimpse of the man, really only his legs,
in the living room with her child.

"He left rapidly as she came down the stairs, obviously.

“She thought he had got in through the sliding patio doors and believed, even then, that he had meant to take her daughter.””

Mr Summers has this to say about the episode described above: “This is a significant development in the search for Madeleine”

Co-author Robbyn Swan is even more adamant: “This is the single most important new piece of information in our book.”

(Side-note:
Express, please do quote the right person when you say you do, as in
the inset you say it’s Mr Summers who says this and in the text you say
it’s Ms Swan)

Well, if this episode with this “British mum” is
the single most important new piece of information the book contains
then we can say that both Mr Summers and Ms Swan agree that it’s “major worldwide news”.

From his reaction in debate about what
happened in the Pentagon, we’re absolutely certain that Mr Summers, as
reader, will demand from Mr Summers, the author, physical proof of what
is written about this episode which is, according to authors, major
worldwide news.

We’re also absolutely certain that Mr Summers,
the reader, will demand that “British mum” be asked to account for what
is said, if she or her friend, ever said it as none of it appears
in the PJ Files.

No anonymity. This is far too important to be
hearsay. Either this episode is true and PJ must follow it up or it’s
not and the woman must face responsibility for deceiving authorities.

Mr
Summers, the reader, we’re sure, will want to know why she didn’t go to
the PJ with this very important information in 2007 which is something
Mr Summers, the author, doesn’t explain in the book.

And we think
Mr Summers, the author, should fully answer Mr Summers, the reader, by
presenting publicly all the physical evidence involving this particular
episode.

Surely Mr Summers, the reader, will be very critical of
Mr Summers, the author, for only substantiating this important piece of
information with a “the authors did not speak directly to the British
woman, who has since returned to live in the UK” and a “however, they
spoke to a friend of hers who told them the story”

The single most important piece of information of your book based on a FOAF? What would Mr Ranke say, Mr Summers?

Most importantly, what would Mr Summers say, Mr Summers? A very stern wag of the finger, we would say.

But it’s not only here that Mr Summers, the reader, is very critical of Mr Summers, the author.

At 11:18

Summers:
I’m not sure how useful this part of the conversation is to listeners,
especially what Mr Ranke is saying about his witnesses, as far as I can
gather, he talked to these witnesses not close to the date but around
2005, 2006, would I be right?

Ranke: Yes, that was when our investigation was launched…

Summers: Yes, is that correct?

Ranke: Several of their accounts are also recorded…

Summers: Is that correct?

Ranke: …on by the government. We have official accounts…

Summers: Is, is that correct? That you spoke to witnesses…

Ranke: …where they say they saw the same thing and place the plane in the same place in 2001

Summers: …in 2005 and thereafter?

Ranke: No, no, if you’re listening to me, yes, that’s when we spoke with them and video recorded them on location

Summers:
No, I’m just asking whether it is correct that you spoke with your
witnesses as late as… at least in the middle of the decade.

Mr Summer’s
then proceeds to make his point by using a personal experience from the time he was a “very young reporter”
on a report he had to do about a kid on a bicycle having been run over by a car. According to Mr Summers, as eye-witnesses provided varying accounts of details on the same day, their versions would certainly vary more over the years.

Kester: Ok, let’s move on gentleman…

Summers:
I.. I... There is actually something else I want to say about that…

Kester: Quickly, please.

Summers:
As
I understand it… that all of the witnesses who were in a position to
see the Pentagon say that they saw the plane hit. Now, they may say that
they saw the plane coming from a different direction and one of the
very first lessons that I learned as a very young reporter was: I was
sent out to report on a bicycle crash, a little boy had been knocked
down by a car and I came back and the editor said to me “what colour was
the bike?” and I said “I don’t know, sir”, I was 18 or 19 yrs old and
he said “go out and find out again”. Now it didn’t make any difference
whether the bike was blue or red or yellow but the details were what
matters and what you do discover and things as simple as a child being
knocked down… a child on a bike being knocked down by a car is that you
have all sort of different stories from eye witnesses right there on the
day. As I understand it, at least a large number of Mr Ranke’s
witnesses were interviewed many years later, and the… the point I’m
trying to make is that their versions are likely to vary on the day,
certainly they’ll vary years later…

We have never seen a report on a newspaper about a bicycle being run over, or involved in any other sort of accident where its colour is referred to, or if we have we haven't noticed it, so it seems to us Mr Summers' editor wanted to play a professional prank and not teach any sort of lesson.

We also fail to see how can one conclude that as different witnesses provide different – not varying – accounts of an event, it means a witness will vary his/her story in time. Mr Summers does not imply in any way that any of the witnesses changed their version during the day, only that many witnesses describe the event with different details. He doesn't answer “I don’t know, sir, some witnesses say it was red but others said it was blue”, he simply replies with the “I don’t know, sir” of someone who has just been caught of not having asked the right questions to the right people and confesses the incompetence. Mr Ranke does point out correctly that if all witnesses did recollect that the bicycle was red, then that means it was red and not of any other colour.

Mr
Summers, is it true that you spoke to your witnesses in 2013, 2014? As
late as 6, 7 years after Maddie was abducted, in 2013 and thereafter?

Well,
Mr Summers, we’re sorry but have to inform you that there’s a Mr
Summers who doesn’t believe a single word your witnesses have to say in
your book. You can ask him yourself.

It has all to do with a red
bicycle episode that apparently marked profoundly his – yours – journalistic (?)
career whereby he is very sceptical of testimonies given later in time.

Mr
Summers, the reader, is very clear in thinking that the “British mum” witness, whose friend was interviewed only after years had gone by,
presented by Mr Summers, the author, in his book has absolutely no credibility
whatsoever. We even dare say that it must be Mr Summers' opinion that to say such a witness provides “the single most important new piece of information” is... laughable.

So, Mr Summers, if it is true that you spoke to
your FOAF witness as late as 2012 - 2014, please, as per Mr Summers, disregard all she has said. And as it seems you have spoken to all witnesses also during this time, please also disregard everything anyone has ever told you about the case. It’s not us saying so, it’s Mr Summers.

We would like to call the attention of our readers to
6:48 of the video. It shows very clearly how Mr Summers cites witnesses
in “The Eleventh Hour” book that he recognises he hasn’t spoken directly to them.
A recurring way he does “investigative journalism” it seems.

The
journalistic profession is not appearing very dignified from this
book. We do think the Pulitzer committee should be more attentive as to
who it nominates for their prize.

But let’s get to what matters about this Summers & Swan piece of…

The first and obvious thing is that it’s just too ridiculous for its ridiculousness not to be intentional.

It
seems to be a collation of the sex-assault-spree that SY claims befell
solely on British little girls whenever on holiday in the Algarve. It
seems one of the girls was not British but it’s not clarified of which
nationality she was.

Assaults only known to UK as the Portuguese authorities, namely the GNR, have denied any knowledge of them.

We think the book was just another rock thrown against the McCann edifice to further erode it.

If someone tells you that a greasy hamburger, chips and a soda is the best diet to lose weight would you believe that person?

No, you wouldn’t.

But
if the same person was to say that the bun is of whole wheat, the chips
are steamed and roasted without any fat and the soda is sugarless, you
might even start to be convinced.

However, if that person,
realising your hesitation, would, instead of the above, say that the
adding of an extra dollop of lard and a thick slice of bacon would make
the whole thing even more dietetic and good for your heart, wouldn’t
that just drive any and all possibilities of ever being believed?

Yes, it would.

To
highlight by ridiculousness the ridiculousness of something, so
making it even more ridiculous than it already is, is certainly not to help it gain any
sort of credibility, on the contrary, it’s to confirm that it hasn’t
any.

Mr Summers' "Mummyman"

When Mr Summers says he’s taking for real the
18-sex-assault-spree he’s adding that extra slice of thick, fat bacon
and when he invents the Mummyman he’s really spreading lard all around,
even on the soda.

About the Mummyman, something has to be said. Allegedly, a girl of 8 on seeing an adult man enter her room in the middle of the night wearing a surgical mask, asks if he's her daddy. This reveals that this little girl is used to, or at least not surprised to see her daddy enter her room in the middle of the night wearing a surgical mask. If this isn't a red flag we don'yt know what one is. To aggravate this, even though, allegedly, the adult male replied he was, she still felt the need to ask the man if he was her uncle. So, both her father and her uncle seem to enter her room wearing a surgical masks. All this in the presence of her 10 yr old sister who remains silent, thus indicating that it wasn't the first time she witnessed this. Lastly, the man left and both children remained silent until they were sure the man left. Only then did they go and warn parents.

If this is true, British authorities must investigate this at once. It's not a problem of a burglary but one of these 2 girls being in a very serious situation. As far as we know, no one has done anything about this. It can only mean one thing: everyone knows this never happened. What a sick game this has become.

Back to the diet analogy, Mr Summers presents the slice of bacon, the 18-sex-assault-spree, very poorly.

“Five
of six attacks had targeted British children. The victims had all been
girls, most of them nine or 10 years old. One, in Silves, had been only
three years old – almost the same age as Madeleine.

(...)

There
had, in fact, been 18 break-ins that involved children, he said, in
properties where British families stayed between 2004 and 2010: five in
Carvoeiro, nine at locations near either Carvoeiro or Albufeira, one in
the village of Vilamoura and three in Praia da Luz itself.”

Where is the Silves one? The one with the victim who was “almost the same age as Madeleine”?

This
is not a question of not doing investigative journalism but of not
being able to do simple arithmetic. There weren’t 18 break-ins involving
children but 19. According to Mr Summers, that is. We think SY should
take this up with him, as we have heard from SY there were 18. Is Mr
Summers calling SY incompetent? We think he is.

And why call it
break-in? What is a break-in involving children that does not have
sexual motivation? A break-in with the intent of stealing a child’s
toys? A break-in to read a bedtime story? Or help the child fall asleep
by singing a song?

To abduct? 19 trial runs? In 19 attempts, not one says the burglar tried to take the child.

He’s not being ridiculous as much as he’s showing what he’s saying is what is indeed ridiculous.

We think we are seeing a Streisand effect but with a twist.

Wikipedia
says that the Streisand effect is “the phenomenon whereby an attempt to
hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended
consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually
facilitated by the Internet.”

The
twist with this book, for us, is that calling the attention to the
ridiculousness of the official versions of what happened to Maddie is intended. As we said, it’s just too ridiculous for it to be
unintentional. It is, in our opinion, very intentional.

It didn’t
backfire because it was meant to backfire all along. That was the objective it was to have, in our opinion. Maybe not as
intensely as it did but the Maddie case does generate true passion in
many and the reaction to the book simply proved that.

The infamous literary trilogy on Maddie

If Danny
Collins “Vanished” had the objective of showing that only a dimwit would
think that Maddie had died that night, Summers’ book “Looking for
Madeleine” is clearly trying to show that only a dimwit believes in
anything SY is literally saying about the case.

As we have been
explaining, we think SY is saying many a truthful thing. Only it’s
saying it in the midst of ridiculous lies, childish fantasies and
self-humiliation of this sick high-level game the Maddie case has
become.

We think Mr Summers was duped. Either by his own
narcissism and the establishment conveniently exploited it, or when
commissioned like a mercenary.

If commissioned, the
“contractors” knew full well that were hiring someone so vain and with
no scruples that he would be easily manoeuvred to write exactly what was
intended for him to write.

If by his own narcissism, the same
reasoning is applicable as soon as the establishment had knowledge he
was writing a book on the case.

Either way, it’s our opinion he was fed information as it was convenient to achieve the purported objectives.

In
our opinion, Mr Summers researched the internet as much as he spoke to
witnesses. He e-mailed some to only have the possibility to saying they
didn’t reply. Note how the intended Streisand effect works on this
specific point. Mr Summers call bloggers haters. This spikes peoples’
curiosity to go and look for themselves and then they will discover that
the word “hate” is transparently misused by the author and so backfire
against him. Neat little trick, isn’t it?

To use the word “hater”
at this point in time about those who contest the official version as
to what happened to Maddie is to wear bell-bottom trousers as if they
were still fashion. They aren’t and neither is the word “hater”.

One
has to be lacking some quality present in the normal human being to
align oneself with the losing side to sell vinegar as champagne,
especially when the issue has been dealt with in detail for the past 7
years on the internet by many educated people.

We witnessed a
similar objective with Kate’s book. Both, in our opinion, were
commissioned, unknown to its authors, to backfire and both succeeded in
doing so.

Mr Summers’ much faster than Kate’s. On the 1st day at
half price, amazing. To have the trilogy Collins (£6.39), McCann (£3.86) and Summers (£9.00)
selling as a package all for the original price of one of them (£19.25) is quite humiliating.

To
say the book was coordinated with the Lisbon trial doesn’t make any
sense. This process even for the Portuguese is baffling. The process
doesn’t have that much complexity to justify the timespan but when
one employs top of the art lawyers one does get top of the art legal
games. Add to that the unexpected change of lawyer of one of the
defendants and we’re expecting having final allegations still to happen 8
months after they were initially planned – in the beginning of January
2014 – with still no date set for them.

About coordinating
anything with the Portuguese justice system, namely with court sessions,
we think that Portugal has proven very clearly that it is an impossible
task. No one is able to coordinate with the random. If the Scriptures
were written based on having them coordinated with the Portuguese
justice system, we are sure Christ’s resurrection would have been
postponed to this day due to some legal technicality.

About its contents, the “discrepancies/omissions” are too many. It would be like pointing olives individually on a tree ready for the picking.

We just want to point out one: Payne’s visit to 5A on May 3rd. It seems it’s mentioned only once and out of context.

For
us, it was interesting not the fact it was missing but to see how
people reacted to this absence. Almost in the opposite manner they
reacted to the fact that Richard Hall did not show the Tapas esplanade –
he showed the same picture The Mirror showed on 13OCT13 as an
appetizer for the UK Crimewatch.

One falsity was noted, the other
wasn’t. By the same people claiming the same justice for Maddie. Very
interesting. And although we know these very words have just been written in the midst of what some
say to be a lack of précis in a language which they have some difficult
to recognise as English, we also know that those who we intend to read them,
have done so.

We don’t see in what way Mr Summers’ book can
benefit the McCanns. In our opinion it only seriously causes them harm as it
has aggravated even further the hostility of public opinion that already was very much against them. Not all that shines is gold and certainly not all that is apparently in favour of the McCanns favours them.

The BH in the various
internet sites, including their own, struggled in vain to extract any
positivity from this episode. It simply wasn’t possible. The book was
simply way too ridiculous.

We only see it as reinforcing the evident weakness the McCanns are showing.

People have witnessed this ever increasing “weakening” of the McCanns. They may not recognise it explicitly but their words do.

But besides ourselves we have seen no other offer an explanation as to why this is so nor when it started happening.

They cling on to 1 thing: whitewashing.

All,
apparently is a whitewashing campaign. They expect the outcome of SY’s
investigation to have been a panicking burglar who killed Maddie. This
will exonerate the McCanns of any evil doing. If it exonerates the McCanns then it's them doing it.

Yes, it will. If
that happens. But let’s suppose SY is able to find a name, a face and
a plausible story to fit such a role. That means that we are wrong
about the McCanns being weak, as they will have been the one who pulled
all the strings to obtain such a desired outcome for them.

But
then why concede Maddie dead so early on? Wouldn’t it be much more
credible, if one is to whitewash, to find first the burglar and then
confirm all the worst fears by having him confess that he killed Maddie? Why
play with fire now by accepting that it is possible from the existing
evidence to plausibly come to the conclusion that she died that night in
that apartment?

From the McCann point of view, it makes no sense
to use the words “death” and “murder” before “burglar” is caught. To
them, we think, recognising there is indeed evidence of Maddie’s death
would make what they’re doing against Mr Amaral to be one enormous and
unacceptable act of pure evil. We know it is but do the McCanns want to be seen as evil? No, we don't think they do.

And if
the McCanns are controlling SY, why on earth did Bundleman remain on
their site when the Met has very clearly said he was an innocent
passer-by, Crèche Dad?

What have those protecting “paedo-Payne” (or more exactly “nepio-Payne”) to gain in having a weak McCanns?

Only
weakened McCanns can explain current events. We have given publicly to our
reasons as to why and when this turn of events happened and are still
waiting for others to do so.

About the 2 minutes in which the McCanns
were dealt with in BBC’s CW “Living with Murder” of 16SEPT14, was, in
our opinion, just another go at reinforcing the link between the word
“murder” and the McCanns.

65 comments:

I think that public perception has been slowly and surely changed over the last 12 months - by one little thing after another - a steady trickle in a discrete manner. It has all been part of a single process or directive. Are you able to summarise the purpose of this - I am imagining it is part of the game that is being played.Thanks for this post - someone with brains is orchestrating this.

We have, we think, summarised it in our post "Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes":http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/08/doomed-pieces-emerging-heroes.html#comment-form

"But we saw the following moves – if we miss any we do apologise.

1. The 3,000 phone calls showing that phone records from that night were indeed compromising.

2. The birth of the 3 Burglars, emerging from an “analysis” of those 3,000 phone calls, this was to show that it was a group. No longer only have an individual involved but a group – a collective endeavour in the fulfilment of the task – PRESENT in PdL on the night of the 3rd;

3. Saying that Ocean Club management kept from authorities the occurrence of burglaries in apartments (or was it they had lost keys of apartments?) prior to that week, with the objective to show that the resort was also involved in that collective task;

4. The 3 Ocean Club workers with the objective to further confirm Ocean Club was involved;

5. The UK CW showing that Gerry was Smithman;

6. The assault-spree with 2 episodes and 2 objectives. The first to tell the public Maddie was dead when she was taken from apartment and the second to show the “collectiveness” was not limited to PdL but spread over the Algarve (we also showed that this had a simultaneous objective of blackmailing the PJ into “asking” SY for a liaison officer into their investigation);

7. The June SY Circus in PdL, with the main objective of getting inside the PJ investigation but also to show that deceased Euclides Monteiro is a person of interest, that the water treatment station is a location of interest, to confirm that Maddie is dead, to show UK Police trusts tracking dogs and to give a window of opportunity for SY to find evidence (we will speak of this later);

8. The 4 arguido stunt, whereby Murat is brought back into the picture via Malinka and having the Ocean Club now involved with a driver;

9. The overall exaggerated expenditure of Operation Grange. The Times reported in May this year (after helicopter ride but before invasion), that it was then estimated at 5,350,000£. If the PdL SY Circus cost between 100,000£ and 200,000£, where were the other 26 to 53 similar operations in the past 3 years? And we have read higher estimations than the one referred by The Times. These figures are based on what? Who is providing this information? The 3,5M£ figure represents a daily expenditure of around 5,000£. Every single day. Or of 150,000£ a month. Every single month. Is that realistic? These exaggerated numbers of tax-payers' money being spent on Grange have in our opinion been put out to even further exacerbate the public opinion against the McCanns making their protection much more difficult."

The only reason we can find for McCanns' evident weakening is that those who initially protected them have decided to no longer provide that protection. Or that the protection they were providing was being inconvenient for them.

We think we have been witnessing the change of tune but being careful to save face.

LOOKING FOR MADELEINE,our book on the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann, has caused a furor since it was published late last week. We have read and noted all the comments posted on our Facebook page and a large number of people have voiced suspicions of the little girl's parents, and unbridled antipathy towards them. Such people, it seems evident, won't allow facts to disabuse them of their views. Those whose work undermines their beliefs must "be part of the conspiracy."

We'll continue to post items of interest, and hope reasonable people will read our book and our work, and continue to comment on it. This page, however, is not a forum in which we shall permit others to defame or libel, spread malicious gossip, or incite others to do so.

Civil discussion or exchange of views will be welcomed, but those with no respect for that principle must expect their posts to be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. There are plenty of other places on the Net that will allow them to shout distortions of the facts and spread black propaganda.

I noticed that but i also noticed that there was a lot of fighting between the pros and the antis which he appears to be quite cintent to allow. Sort of supports again what you say about the intentional effect

Textusa - Flabbergasted. This is the post that finally removed all doubt that you are spot on in your understanding of this case. I firmly believe that that Mr Summers is not that stupid to have written this book through his own narcissism. A man on a blind horse could have perdicted the outcry that was going to meet it's publication. No this book was commissioned for the very reasons you have written. Take a look at Amazon, a lot of people using amazon have limited knowledge of the police files or books/videos written in opposition to the abduction theory. The reviews on Summers book have developed into a war between the pros and the antis, the scores are closer than any perdictions in the referendum (Hard luck Scotland by the way) 19 - 1 stars and 19 - 5 stars, with the anti's pretending to have read the book using their space to direct the stunned novice to books/vidoes/files.The pros like the Antis are also pretending to have read the book but using their space to attack the anti's (not very successfully) . In actual fact most I would suspect were like myself started reading it but realising the nonsense it was gave it up as a bad job. Summers is (was) as serious journalist WT? how high does this go up.

Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police | Press Gazette

William Turvill 19 September 2014

The parents of missing child Madeleine McCann have sued The Sunday Times for libel over a story which they said gave the impression they had hindered the investigation into her disappearance.

According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled.

Kate and Gerry McCann took issue with a front-page story from last year, which the couple said suggested they had kept "secret from investigating authorities a crucial piece of evidence concerning the disappearance of their daughter".

In addition to the article, which was published on 27 October and remained online until 8 November, the McCanns also made reference to readers' comments left on the article - in High Court papers seen by Press Gazette.

The story, for which the paper apologised on 28 December, said: “The critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.”

The title reported that an intelligence report produced for the McCanns contained “crucial E-Fits” of a man who was identified as the prime suspect last year. The paper said that the “McCanns and their advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if they divulged its contents”.

The Insight story also quoted a source close to the McCanns as saying that the report was “hyper-critical of the people involved”.

In their claim form, in which they were claiming unspecified damages, the McCanns said that the story was understood to mean that they had hindered "the search for [Madeleine] and the investigation into her disappearance by allowing the trail to go cold".

They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.

They also claimed that the paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made against them.

The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".

They said that the email, outlining what was wrong with the story with a “detailed rebuttal”, was responded to by executive editor Bob Tyrer six days later.

The McCanns said in their claim form that he told them “we could have made some facts clearer in the story” and that “we could have published more of your pre-publication statement” but largely rejected their complaint.

They said Tyrer offered them “three limited revisions” to the online article, publication of the statement from their spokesman and “an extremely limited” clarification in the corrections and clarifications column.

On 8 November Gerry McCann wrote back noting his disappointment that the article remained online and he pointed to the readers’ comments below.

The McCanns then consulted lawyers Carter Ruck, who wrote to The Sunday Times on 15 November “with proposed wording for an apology”.

The Sunday Times published the following apology on 28 December:

In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

3. 7 November – This e-mail was responded to by executive editor Bob Tyrer six days later November. Tyrer offered them “three limited revisions” to the online article, publication of the statement from their spokesman and “an extremely limited” clarification in the corrections and clarifications column

4. On 8 November Gerry McCann wrote back noting his disappointment that article is still online

5. The McCanns then consulted lawyers Carter Ruck, who wrote to The Sunday Times on 15 November “with proposed wording for an apology”.

6. The Sunday Times published the apology on 28 December

This sequencing can, we think, be one about which can be said “according to publisher News UK the claim has been settled” was it starts with the article being published and culminates with published apology on 28 December.

Apparently, this article is based on “High Court papers seen by Press Gazette”. Mr Turvill seems to have read McCanns’ claim. It’s very detailed. To the point of saying McCanns made reference to readers' comments left on the article online.

The article doesn’t refer that McCanns in this claim express not being satisfied with the terms and contente of The Times apology.

As the article is indeed detailed one would expect for this to have been referred had it happened. As it is not, one has to assume the case was closed, or settled, with the apology.

All happened in 2013.

The unconfirmed libel trial that was unveiled by Daniel Douglas in his tweet of 01AUG14 has, according to him, a case ref of HQ14D02886.

We believe that HQ14, refers to current year, 2014.

This, in our opinion, and based only on the info that is available to us, seems to show we’re talking about 2 different processes.

The first, about e-fits, which the article says has been settled and the second, the one that is supposedly simmering somewhere in British Courts.

If it was to be a single process then Douglas would be only in August 2014 referring to something that happened in the end of 2013. However his choice of words seem to indicate that the news were fresh ““Kate and Gerry McCann have filed a case against The Times in the High Court. Interesting. No details made public yet.” Why the “yet” about something that had already sometime?

Also, we find very strange the Press Gazette article not saying anything about the eventual continuance of process after apology. Surely there would be a mail exchange where the McCanns, via their legal representatives, would express that they didn’t consider the apology sufficiently satisfactory and The Times responding they refused to apologise any further.

The article doesn’t say any of this. As said above, the process seems to have run all its terms in 2013, finishing with the apology.

As we said in “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes” post, all needs to be confirmed. The Press Gazette article doesn’t help in this.

Nor does it make us alter in anything we have said in the post.

This could have been done to convey the idea the upcoming process is the second time round, to confirming the insatiable greed of the couple and to answer the question why are they doing it? Because they’ve done it before and succeeded so why not go for it again?

If this article is the Establishment’s response to our post, then it could be interpreted as a very specious way of confusing both possible processes by implying The Times caved in to the McCanns. To have people put the issue behind their backs and consider it closed. But that would give us an importance we don’t think we have.

** May 'should reflect' on doctor abuse **A former head of the UK's child protection unit says Theresa May should "reflect on her position" over the government's handling of the Myles Bradbury case.< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-29283206 >

The Canadian police did all the spade work. How much effort and manpower does it take to inform police areas in UK?Blaming Theresa May for the situation is ridiculous.Why is Gamble saying this, rather than the person who took over from him in 2010?How was CEOP structured and how did it operate? That's what IPCC need to look at

The articles about the Mc's suing suggest it's The Sunday Times who are the target but refer to the same allegation around the withholding of evidence. There is suggestion that what was published in The Times about this in 2013, ending with an apology from them in Dec of the same year, won the Mc's an undisclosed amount that was settled out of court. Maybe Carter Ruck have found a loophole to sue the sister publication as it is administered by a separate editorial?

“High-profile owners and closureEditRupert Murdoch's son-in-law Matthew Freud became the new owner of Press Gazette in May 2005, in partnership with the former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan to raise around £600,000 to buy the title. The purchase was part of the break-up of Quantum Business Media by its owners, the venture-capital group ABN Amro Capital.[citation needed]On 19 October 2006, Freud announced that the magazine was for sale, citing as a reason indifference in the newspaper industry to the British Press Awards.[citation needed]The company owned by Freud and Morgan, Press Gazette Limited, subsequently entered administrative receivership.[citation needed]Initially, the receivers were unable to find another buyer for the magazine, and on 24 November 2006 it closed.[citation needed]”

Sold on after Freud owned it.But are there still some Murdoch links? I would expect there would be.

Pat Kenny (known in some sections in Ireland as 'the plank') doesn't do real investigative journalism. It's all about Kenny as a media personality. So, you can imagine the 'chemistry' involved between Kenny and S&S... ? Enough said. Not to be taken seriously at all.

22.33We have so many of them in UK , it can't be the heat. LololThis is the most ludicrous explanation of paedophilia I have ever heardWhat academic studies has she referenced for this bizarre hypothesis?UK should publicise this: graphs showing temperature rises with reported paedo activity.

So the best place to take your young daughter on holiday is anywhere in the Antarctic (just watch out for those predatory penguin paedos though) or maybe northern Siberia, the Canadian arctic, or Tromso.

Do these Swan and Summers realize that they are being laughed at, ridiculed on all levels?

The authors of a new book on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann say the publication is being targeted by a sustained campaign of abuse online.

They claim they have “received confirmation” that “vigilantes” within a Facebook group claiming some 30,000 members are intent on sabotaging the book because it concludes that the family had no role in the disappearance.

Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, who live in west Waterford, said there has been “a torrent of hate mail” largely on Facebook and Twitter, from people who persecute Madeleine’s parents and “make vile allegations on the basis of no evidence at all”.

The book has also attracted some negative commentary on the Amazon site most of which, the writers contend, “make it clear the review writers had not first read the book”.

The site also carries many positive reviews, while the book has been described as “compelling” by the Daily Telegraph.

The Richard and Judy book club labels it “forensically detailed... incredibly chilling”, while The Sun considers it “explosive”.

Between them the authors have written or co-written eight acclaimed biographies, including works on Marilyn Monroe, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, and JFK.

Their 2011 collaboration, The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 & Osama bin Laden, was shortlisted for the Pulitzer Prize for History.

Looking for Madeleine, on which they worked for two years, claims to be “the first independent, in-depth, and definitive account” of the disappearance of the three- year-old from her family’s holiday apartment in the Algarve on May 3, 2007.

The book examines documentation and official statements pertinent to the investigation and analyses events as they unfolded before, during and since Madeleine’s disappearance, now widely presumed to have been an abduction.

The work contains “graphic detail on a series of sex assaults on little British girls prior to Madeleine’s disappearance” and names several paedophile suspects.

The book dismisses any suggestion that the McCanns were in any way responsible for the disappearance, and ask “why many people in the UK — and a majority in Portugal — speculate that the McCanns have something to hide”.

They're certainly fueling the fires. Quite deliberately it would seem. All to raise awareness of their book? I hope not, that has already backfired. Very irresponsible behaviour from a couple who call themselves professionals. Christy Parker seems to be a pen for hire in their local town of Youghal. He's on LinkedIn as Christy Parker, journalist at blahblah (his words)

Swan quotes this as a theory but gives no ref. The interviewer is so lacking in curiosity or journalistic instinct, he doesn't question this breakthrough scientific finding, which could advance worldwide knowledge of paedophilia

I propose the following conspiracy theory: Summers and Swan don't exist. They're fictional characters. No one can be this stupid.It's ridiculous but not as much as the book they published. If it was to make money, it isn't working in Amazon. And I don't think it's doing well in bookstores.

"The book dismisses any suggestion that the McCanns were in any way responsible for the disappearance, and ask “why many people in the UK — and a majority in Portugal — speculate that the McCanns have something to hide”."

Humm...Kate's refusal to answer the police questions, for one! Coming up with every excuse under the sun NOT to participate in a proper police reconstruction, running back to the UK as soon as they were made "arguidos" despite previous (public) vows not to leave Portugal without Madeleine, the many different and contradicting version of events told to the police and the media... Never having physically looked for Madeleine on the night she vanished, never having taken seriously any of the many "sightings", I mean, never having immediately gone to the places where they daughter was supposedly seen, but willingly and gladly travel everywhere there was a money making or fame seeking opportunity!Need I say more, Mr. Summers:::?

The comments from readers that I have read on various blogs/forums dedicated to Maddie about this book only confirms what this post says: the blunder is much too obvious. This is not the usual let's insult the Portuguese and show we stand united against them. This is insulting everyone. The book doesn't even challenge the intelligence of a 3yr old. I hope authors are satisfied and found worthwhile having their careers as writers forever ruined by their own doing.

"They claim they have “received confirmation” that “vigilantes” within a Facebook group claiming some 30,000 members are intent on sabotaging the book because it concludes that the family had no role in the disappearance."

Isn't his an own goal? Who in the world has 30,000 people "intent on sabotaging" something they have done? Are these 30,000 wrong or does the book deserve the criticism it's getting?Anyone complaining that 30,000 people from all over the world have got together against them out of pure hatred is to be completely deluded.

I not condoning what summers has done in writing this book but if his purpose was simply to make money out of the case,he could not do anything only write a very pro mccann book. Sorry if im rambling but a lot of people think he should have wrote a book which highlighted all the inconsistecies and lies as well as other evidence against them. But surely while a investigation is on going you just cant publish a book which highlights evidence against the suspects can you?. As i say im not condoning what he has done but the choice is either write a pro mccann book or dont write any book.

I know but do you see my point?. Im sure Summers is not that much in need of money to go down the route of selling his dignity and reputation to produce this book, there has to be more to it, prehaps designed as a guage of public opinion on the case, prehaps a warning to others who would be considering adapting a pro mccann stance when the investigation is complete, prehaps to hype the whole thing up again in time for the MSM presenting the resukts of the investigation. However whatever the reason, a lot of people are mystified why a book presenting the evidence has not been published, pat brown has said she cant get hers published. My point is that its becausevof libel laws. GA was able tonpublish his on the grounds that the canns used the press to libel him and he nad the right to defend hid reputation ( i think correct me if im wrong)

How I see it is that a lot of the comments made to Summers was to provide evidence to contradict the nonsense he was writing and rightly so but I trying to go back to the reasons for writing the book. He claims his daughter asked him or his wife how long would you look for me (very thought provoking question from a 3 year year old). So presumably if he really believes the child was abducted and if the book was written to further the search, it should gave us a clear guide to where the author thinks the child is or what happened to her. IMO the book doesn’t fulfil that objective it just presents a lot of information which the investigators already knew so he is not furthering the search in any way. I have to say it never ceases to amaze me how many people use their own children to back up their support of the parents “ There but for the grace of god” “we have all done it haven’t we”.........Again I know I’m rambling but back to my point if it was to make money he can only write a book that doesn’t prejudice an investigation or libel the parents. That’s the question I would like to ask Mr Summers Why???. PS in response to your comment he is 77 maybe it was intended to be his pension fund lol

Saw this and thought very apt. Would like to share it here.http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10274p150-book-already-half-price-on-amazon

Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post Clay Regazzoni Today at 8:25 amClive James' poem "The Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered" could have been written for just this occasion.

The book of my enemy has been remainderedAnd I am pleased.In vast quantities it has been remainderedLike a van-load of counterfeit that has been seizedAnd sits in piles in a police warehouse,My enemy's much-prized effort sits in pilesIn the kind of bookshop where remaindering occurs.Great, square stacks of rejected books and, between them, aislesOne passes down reflecting on life's vanities,Pausing to remember all those thoughtful reviewsLavished to no avail upon one's enemy's book --For behold, here is that bookAmong these ranks and banks of duds,These ponderous and seemingly irreducible cairnsOf complete stiffs.

The book of my enemy has been remainderedAnd I rejoice.It has gone with bowed head like a defeated legionBeneath the yoke.What avail him now his awards and prizes,The praise expended upon his meticulous technique,His individual new voice?Knocked into the middle of next weekHis brainchild now consorts with the bad buysThe sinker, clinkers, dogs and dregs,The Edsels of the world of moveable type,The bummers that no amount of hype could shift,The unbudgeable turkeys.

Yea, his slim volume with its understated wrapperBathes in the blare of the brightly jacketed Hitler's War Machine,His unmistakably individual new voiceShares the same scrapyard with a forlorn skyscraperOf The Kung-Fu Cookbook,His honesty, proclaimed by himself and believed by others,His renowned abhorrence of all posturing and pretense,Is there with Pertwee's Promenades and Pierrots--One Hundred Years of Seaside Entertainment,And (oh, this above all) his sensibility,His sensibility and its hair-like filaments,His delicate, quivering sensibility is now as oneWith Barbara Windsor's Book of Boobs,A volume graced by the descriptive rubric"My boobs will give everyone hours of fun".

Soon now a book of mine could be remaindered also,Though not to the monumental extentIn which the chastisement of remaindering has been meted outTo the book of my enemy,Since in the case of my own book it will be dueTo a miscalculated print run, a marketing error--Nothing to do with merit.But just supposing that such an event should holdSome slight element of sadness, it will be offsetBy the memory of this sweet moment.Chill the champagne and polish the crystal goblets!The book of my enemy has been remainderedAnd I am glad.

Margaret Hall, babysitter, mentioned by S&S page 62.Apart from the fact she says parents were playing tennis when it was dark (floodlit courts available?), the child was described as a BOY of 6 in many earlier press reports.She saw "Ratman" and reported it to M3. The PJ dismissed the sighting as outdated and of no relevance.The sketch provided of the man was hilarious.Of course, she described him as Potruguese. But it wasn't reported to the PJ at the time.And by November 2007, Hall says it was a girl, but doesn't state her age.

Mail in 2008 has unnamed nanny looking after 6 year old boy with suspect who was identical to Robert Murat trying to lift shutters.As if RM would try to do that, knowing how shutters worked.There was a concerted attempt going on here to implicate him and Michaela by Metodo 3, who were behind all of these sightings.SY collected 30 boxes from M3 offices and seem to be working their way through the contents

S and S give anonymous abductor sightings. This may add some names, as reported at the time.Karen Sixsmith saw a woman who looked like Michaela Walczuch, who came to the door with a man, saying they were Jehovah's Witnesses. The man seemed anxious to get inside the flat where she was staying with her husband (Ian) and young daughter, who is blonde with blue eyes, like M and was so concerned she called the police immediately.This was 6 weeks before the Mcs came to PDLThis was reported to Metodo 3 it seems, but nothing in PJ files.The rest of the article names Paul Gordon and British nanny looking after 6 year old boy who sees a man identical to Robert Murat, trying to lift shutters of a ground floor flat.Is this Margaret Hall? Or were there 2 nannies looking after 6 year olds, one boy, one girl, who were both troubled by intruders? Maybe Margaret Hall decided the intruder was Portuguese rather than a Murat look-alike? Unfortunately, Sooty and Sweep didn't research this.

(the latter are puppets from a children's show from years ago but seems appropriate for S and S)

In my opinion, Gamble has a lot to do with the publication of this book.His desperate defence on FB and Twitter is very unbecoming for a professional. I wonder if S and S feel they have been used and abused and their reputation tarnished by association? If so, they must be furious that the book has bombed.

TextusaDo you think the papers might be keeping serialisation for when damages trial resumes? Or is it fatally wounded by derision, copyright complaints and abysmal sales figures?Would more publicity generate sales or further humiliation?

I believe the Mccanns would have had their phones hacked back in 2007. Hacking had been going on for years before madeleine vanished and it was something we the public and presumably the mccanns were not aware of. As the mccanns were the No.1 news story their phones would definitely have been hacked. Gerry would later have been aware of this hence his involvement in 'hacked off'. The mccanns and their team cannot contain all the information available on them, try as they may. The missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle must be in the hands of the media hence the superinjunctions the mccanns have in place preventing papers from reporting the true facts of this story. Once the lid blows on this saga the papers will have a field day.

It has become evident over the years how the mccanns and their team have manipulated the truth and tailored their story for fit in with the ridiculous abductor scenario.

Thank you Textusa for your analytical blog, may the truth be revealed.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Total Pageviews

As of Jan 19 2019 we're waiting for Jules to own the blog.

MESSAGE to NEWCOMERS

This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened:

- Maddie McCanndied in the early evening of May 3rd, 2007, in the Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental.

- At the time of Maddie's death the Praia da Luz's Ocean Club was hosting a large swinging holiday (which we believe took place in various locations in and around Praia da Luz - from Lagos to Sagres) in which the McCanns and friends were part of among many others.

- After Maddie's death a cover-up of unseen proportions and scope took place not to hide Maddie's death but with the main purpose of hiding the presence of swinging. To achieve that, Maddie's death had to be hidden.

- We don't believe there was any sort of negligence involved in the Maddie affair. We don't believe that T9 dined at Tapas Bar from Sunday to Wednesday. We think that on those nights they left their children with professional nannies - as did other guests - to go dine downtown PdL. On Thursday night they did use Tapas but that was simply part of what was to be "negligence"that was required to allow Maddie to be "abducted."

PJ Files

Anonymity

A MAJOR MINORITY

TRUTH is Self-Sustained

Think for yourself

Luz - THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED

PdL - What a place. Why does anyone holiday there?It's populated by black heroin addicts, people who rob apartments, gypsies who steal scrap and wood, scruffy moustachioed lurers of children, bogus charity collectors, suspicious street musicians, men lurking near phone booths, glasses man lurking in stairwells, blond men suspiciously lurking outside apartments, soothing couples entering apartments without permission, mysterious gangs of cleaners, men taking photographs of children on beaches... And to top it all, you have to queue for a table booking.Anonymous 11Nov 2013 12:22:00

Maybe because you can always enjoy an ice-cream in the rain?And a dip in an icy pool on arrival always attracts a crowd.Textusa 11Nov 2013 12:28:00

I like the Tapas fragile chairs and tables. They wobble nicely when cutting thick grilled steaks spilling the drinks all about! It's fun for the whole family!Anonymous 11Nov 2013 13:08:00

And how about the number of men seen carrying little blond girls in the street in the middle of the night?Anonymous 11Nov 2013 14:04:00

PdL - where families take it in turn to vomit each night, dog packs pursue and bite joggers, guests fall off catamarans, damage tendons playing tennis, have shaving accidents and stagger around apartments bleeding, domestic appliances need repair, shutters jam, baby monitors won't function at restaurants, travel cots can't be assembled.. sounds like THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.Anonymous 12 Nov 2013 12:37:00

Child Catcher

Algarve - THE REGION OF THE DAMNED

“Algarve – Where Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’s Child Catcher found it ideal to roam the streets with his GYPSY-wagon:“There are children here somewhere. I can smell them. Come along, kiddie-winkies!”Algarve, the REGION OF THE DAMNED.”

Please Reconstruct I:

PJ's Declaration for Reopening Process:

"Madeleine McCann

As is the case with any situation in which a child goes missing, notwithstanding formal dismissal of the inquiry into her disappearance, and just as has always been publicly stated, the Polícia Judiciária never stopped paying close attention to any and all information that might possibly shed light on the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the identity of the perpetrator(s).

It was with this goal in mind that in March 2011 the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária entrusted a team of investigators from the North Directorate with the mission of reassessing, as a whole, the vast amount of information gathered during the inquiry, aimed at identifying data for which a more in-depth investigation might be useful and possible.

The reassessment which took place over the last two years and a half suggested new evidence to have surfaced, which, requiring the investigation to proceed, meets the requirements set out by section 279(1) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure for reopening of the inquiry.

Accordingly, a request for reopening was made to the Public Prosecutor for the jurisdiction of Portimao, and approval granted by the latter. "

The Anne Guedes Transcriptions

Permanent Suggested Reading

Quote

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

Revelations

"For the righteous, a revelation is a joyous event, the realization of a divine truth but for the wicked, revelations can be far more terrifying, when dark secrets are exposed and sinners are punished for their trespasses." Quote from the TV Series "Revenge" (T2 - Ep9)

Truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.Arthur Schopenhauer

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.Winston Churchill

The Revolution

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.George Orwell

The Revolution Goes Viral

"Once information networks become social, the implications are massive: truth can now travel faster than lies, and all propaganda becomes instantly flammable. Sure, you can try to insert spin, but the instantly networked consciousness of millions of people will set it right: they act like white blood cells against infection so that ultimately the truth, or something close to it, persists much longer than disinformation"The Guardian (04Jan12)

We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts Winston Churchill

PRECIOUS, SO TRUE, WORDS

“One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.”

Kate McCann

(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 328)

Imagine...

"This says it all, Ms Loach hit the nail on the head!

"Ms Loach replied: “Imagine the public believing that you covered up your child’s death and then sought to make money out of it. They feel shame, humiliation and anguish."

Yes, that's exactly what we, the public, believe, because that's exactly what they did! And, their "shame, humiliation and anguish" are because they know we know!"

Comment posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Sep 16, 2013, 8:36:00 AM on "McCann vs Amaral Libel Trial" post referring to Mockumentary maker Emma Loach's testimony on the 1st day of said trial as one of McCann's defense witness.

Legal Disclaimer

This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and of opinions, between WHITE HATS, so is not responsible for the use, misuse or any form of interpretation (mainly misinterpretation) of its content, as although it uses a public medium, as is the internet, it's of PRIVATE nature, very much like any other conversation that takes place in a restaurant, pub or any other public location, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised.

Sound Explanation for Viciousness

Compliments from the Maggots' Lair:

- “…all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa.”

- “I think she should be on the streets and off the internet"

Chinagirl):

- “Disgusting piece of slime.”

(Raptor):

- “Yikes ! That's disgusting.”

(preciousramotswe):

- “You are right. It's a shambolic mess of vitriol and obtuseness. But then they always are. The one that some claimed finally 'proved' who was carrying who during the Smith sighting is a masterpiece of deliberately confused arguments in which labrynthine plots are used to cover how empty the central thesis is”

Out of the Blue (or... Black?)

Hey textusa How are you? well I hope,just thought I would tell you that there are videos about you on youtube, claiming you are an internet predator who stole her daughters identity and prowls the forums for young boys, they say you are welsh!! I think its a case of mistaken identity because are you not portuguese and male? Anyway great blog. keep it up.(Anon., Nov 13th, 05:43)

Conversation from the "Lightless Zone"

sabot:

“Wot Round Table?”

bonnybraes1:

“He/she/it invented a barking mad 'theory' about no-one actually having eaten in the Tapas, because he/she/it couldn't grasp the table arrangements.”

So, because textusa doesn't understand stuff like that, all the Tapas group, the staff, everyone, were lying.

OMG - you don't suppose textusa is actually Gonc, do you?”

sansouci:“Could be Bonny.

The 'theories' about the table and the watersports are really so far beyond bizarre, that I get the feeling that 'textusa' could actually be 'pisstaka'.”

BLACK BUT TRUE WORDS

“Because no-one is more vicious in their search for payback that those who realise they have allowed themselves to be taken for a fool” (A "boomerang" comment left by an Anonymous (Insane?) at Sep 22, 2012 2:06:00 PM)

Insane's IMPORTANT Comments

“…How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”

Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM

“…Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”

Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM

FOOT IN THE MOUTH DISEASE

Insane (Nov 14, 2012 11:37:00 PM):

Oh look here - amazing what one can find out by means of a couple of emails to Mark Warner.

You are toast, lady. Finished.

I am going to enjoy this more than is actually decent.

Textusa (Nov 15, 2012 8:50:00 AM):

Well it seems that you're quite privy with the Ocean Club aren't you?

Them giving YOU the information about their own mails?

And you threatening us based on information that YOU apparently got from the Ocean Club.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

Insane (Nov 15, 2012 10:47:00 PM):

One thing I really like about Mark Warner is how helpful their staff are. Really go the extra mile for someone needing information. IYKWIM

:)

Textusa (Nov 16, 2012 11:17:00 AM):

Thank you for confirming that Mark Warner Staff are supplying YOU with information pertaining the Maddie Affair.

Insane's Moment of Rare Beauty

“It would be more suspicious if every account tallied. Police expect to find contradictions, don't tell me you did not know this?” (Nov 22, 2012 3:38:00 PM), when providing an opinion on contradictions from various statements in the PJ Files.

“I don't give a rat's arse about the statements which tally too closely - of course some of them tally too closely, there is an in depth analysis of them on my blog, the one you are not invited to.” (Nov 22, 2012 4:08:00 PM), when, exactly 30 minutes later, provides an opposite opinion, in this case about the fact that some of Tapas' Staff's statements tally too closely.

Insane the Entrepeneur?

"I'd love to stay, but I have a report to write, and it won't do itself, will it?" (Nov 29, 2012 8:14:00 PM)Insane the Disruptor, a new profession shown inNew Career Opportunities

Insane's Proposal for a New Legal Disclaimer

Textusa's new disclaimer. Please ignore all previous versions

''This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and opinions between people who have sniffed WAY too many solvents, and the imaginary people who live at the bottom of their garden, and so is not responsible for the enormous fines, possible imprisonment, or lifelong incarceration in a mental hospital which may result from it's content, as although it is on the interclickyweb, it is of a private nature, accompanied only by the voices in their heads, very much like any other conversation which takes place in a psychiatric ward between people rocking backwards and forwards in their seat and eating the wallcoverings, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised in the half hour per day of free association which the inmates are allowed.''Comment NOT published but submitted on Aug 22, 2011 10:17:00 PM

Kate's Round Table

INSANE'S BLOG

We waited so long for the link...

A possible explanation for the wait: "As I have made perfectly clear, you and your sort will never have access to my blog. We are particular about who we invite, and would not include screaming harpies and riff-faff like yourself."unpublished comment from Insane at Nov 23, 2012 10:55:00 AM

Then, a glimmer of hope?“Publishing elsewhere the posts Textusa refuses to publish is also appropriate - and also gives you fools a chance to read what she withholds from you, knowing that you would desert her if you were aware of how much trouble she leads you into.” (Nov 29, 2012 12:40:00 PM)

No, it wasn’t to be so… :“For the last time, you will never be provided with a link for my blog - you are not welcome there and will never be given access”(Nov 29, 2012 1:38:00 PM)